Talk:Homosexual behavior in animals/Archive 5

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Homosexual behavior in animals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070817012421/http://www.colszoo.org:80/animalareas/aforest/bonobo.html to http://www.colszoo.org/animalareas/aforest/bonobo.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Homosexual behavior in animals. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20718
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.wholeearthmag.com/ArticleBin/338.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Great example of what's wrong on Wikipedia
I was given this link as some sort of justification on an argument, and as I went through it and started to explore the many many links given to all sorts of different animals found in the world, I have discovered that this is a perfect example of how people exploit wikipedia to promote something they believe.

For one, there are no counter arguments presented (which there are many out there, including Time magazine). http://www.narth.org/docs/animalmyth.html

However, the most embarassing (I would think for Wikipedia, in trying to be considered a ligitimate encyclopedia like source) is that so many nonsense links are presented to justify the positions given in this article. If one follows any of these animal links (pick one, ducks, elephants, etc.) you will only find a link on that animal and nothing to do with the proposed proposition that there is homosexual behavior in animals. Also, where is the definition of what 'homosexual behavior' means? Is Jail house sex considered homosexual behavior? Are we only discussing 'same gender physical sex' or are we discussing housekeeping? bro-mance? etc.?

this whole article just seems to be someone's desire to justify a belief with much fantasy added and no counter points presented. Agthorn (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Information.svg Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  Fiddle   Faddle  12:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @ Agthorn: I know this reply is a bit late but you seem to have a mistaken idea of the purpose of wikilinks. They are merely links to articles about the animals being used as examples - they are not there to "justify the positions given in this article".  Richerman    (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear Agthorn, you cite the NARTH site to support your claims. However, NARTH is obviously an ideological institution with an equally ideological website. Even their "Research" page claims there are many studies without citing any of these studies. This is not just unscientific, it's even against basic Wikipedia rules. In fact, the one study I found (Langström et al. 2010, Arch Sex Behav. 2010 Feb;39(1):75-80) showed quite the opposite of what NARTH claims on their website, namely that homosexuality has a significant genetic component. Peteruetz (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, this article should be renamed Bisexuality in nature, as not a single species in these ridiculous lists have exclusive homosexual life relationships, nor do any of these NOT homosexual species reproduce homosexually. These are examples of BISEXUALITY, not homosexuality.--Tallard (talk) 04:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2016
Please add the following paragraph between the current second ("In early February 2004...") and third paragraph ("Zoos in Japan and Germany...") of the Penguins subsection:

In Odense Zoo in Denmark, a pair of male king penguins adopted an egg that had been abandoned by a female, proceeding to incubate it and raise the chick. (If using copy-and-paste, please remember to remove the "nowiki" template that I used to avoid citations showing up on this talk page.)

62.107.216.79 (talk) 23:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  17:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Homosexuality has never been shown in the wild
Homosexuality is defined as exclusively having intercourse with animals of the same sex. This has never been shown in the wild. The only animal where they believe it might occur in is sheep, which is a domesticated animal being raised in captivity. The article needs some major work — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.136.200 (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The article refers to "Homosexual behavior" not "Homosexuality," and identifies sheep as the only non-human gay animals. What term would be better than "Homosexual behavior?" Dingsuntil (talk) 06:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The IP is wrong with regard to the definition of homosexuality. And, Dingsuntil, the reason that this article's title uses "Homosexual behavior" and not "Homosexuality" is explained at Talk:Homosexual behavior in animals/Archive 4. Why do you have a problem with the article's title using "Homosexual behavior" instead of "Homosexuality"? You appear to want us to use a different term in place of "homosexual behavior"; besides using "homosexuality," the only other appropriate one would be "same-sex sexual behavior," which is long-winded. Flyer22 (talk) 06:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Why, because it is weasel wording. By definition, an individual who is not exclusive to one sex, who has sex with both sexes, is bisexual. The title of this article weasels "behaviour" as a replacement for lifestyle, and because of this weasel wording, is understood by readers as a justification of homosexuality in general.--Tallard (talk) 04:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You're reading too much into my comment. Dingsuntil (talk) 07:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Dingsuntil and Tallard, I just now saw that that discussion in this section continued after my initial comment above. Dingsuntil, I'm confused by my reply to you. And, Tallard, I don't consider this a WP:Weasel word matter. In any case, Alt lys er svunnet hen replied to you below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The OP in this thread is 100% correct. These lists should be renamed Bisexual behaviour in nature, as not a single one of these species is exclusively homosexual. It also leads to the error in logic which distinguishes homosexual "lifestyle", one who commits exclusively to one's sexual preference, for life, or hoped so, versus a homosexual action, which is by definition bisexuality, as these animals sometimes are homo sometimes het. It is way past time Wikipedia editors fixed this mess. As it is, it is unworthy of encyclopedic content.--Tallard (talk) 04:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I 100% disagree. Can you find a source which supports the claim that engaging in (any?) homosexual behavior makes one "exclusively homosexual"? For example, I can identify as a heterosexual, be in a heterosexual relationship, engage in homosexual behavior with Pat after work on Tuesdays, and go home and still identify as (and be considered to be) a heterosexual. You might assume that makes me a bisexual, and it probably at least makes me a men who have sex with men. But I'm not necessarily attracted to Pat or other men, so I'm not a bisexual. These nuances of human sexuality are impossible to measure in animals, which is why previous discussions have established the current title of the article as the clearest, most accurate per sources, and most readily understood by the lay-reader. The only error in logic will be on the part of those who do not understand these distinguishing characteristics of sexuality; namely that ostensible heterosexuals (like animals in general) can engage in homosexual behavior, and still not be considered to be homosexual or bisexual. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2016
Please remove the entire Basis section because it does not give the readers concise information involving the connection between neurological, physiological and genetic basis. Replace with this Section and the following sub sections. Fatimmma134 (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. This is a potentially contentious edit and should have consensus. --  Dane  talk  04:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Experimental Research
Neurological & Hormonal Basis

It has been noted that defining the motivational factors in which an animal performs homosexual behaviors, is very difficult. However through experiments it was found that the anatomy of the brain as well as the genetic make up of an individual, play a role in the homosexual behaviors observed in certain animals. The endocrine system is a collection of glands that produce and secrete hormones that regulate metabolism. A few of those hormones include luteinizing hormone, testosterone, estradiol, dopamine, adrenaline and many more. The endocrine system coordinates with the autonomic system and the limbic system to emit a response to environmental stimuli. The limbic system, especially the hypothalamus and the amygdala, plays a significant role in behavior, motivation, drives and olfaction and portray sexual dimorphism. The function of the amygdala is activated when it receives input from the olfactory bulb while one uses their sense of smell. When an animal smells either a potential mate or predator near by, their amygdala is stimulated. This sparks an emotion such as aggression or sexual drive all while communicating with the endocrine system and central nervous system to release the appropriate hormones and response for whatever the situation may be. Different situations stimulate different features of the amygdala and respond accordingly. When the amygdala is stimulated it enhances ones sexual arousal and aggression levels. It was discovered that the size of the amygdala is positively correlated with increased aggression and physical behavior. Knowing that in humans and animals, male amygdalae are larger than female amygdalae is fundamental when interpreting the data found for the previous statement. The amygdala is rich in androgen receptors, which bind to testosterone and express male phenotypes. The fact that males have more testosterone levels than females contain means that male amygdalae contain more androgen receptors, subsequently indicating the size of male amygdalae to be bigger than that of females. The positive correlation between size and aggression and sexual arousal indicates that males behave in a more aggressive manner sexually and generally. However if lesions of the amygdala are present or a disruption in the development of the amygdala occurs, in which a male has less androgen receptors than norm or a female has more receptors than norm, individuals will exhibit behaviors of the opposite sex. This was seen among heterosexual and homosexual rams and female sheep when comparing luteinizing hormone (LH) and brain estradiol receptors (ER). The sexual performance was observed among four rams that copulated with ewes, four rams that copulated with males but never mounted females and eight ewes. They were induced with different levels of estradiol to see the effect on LH and the amygdala. The scientists concluded that the LH surge induced did not show a difference among heterosexual and homosexual rams however the ER content in the amygdala showed a resemblance between homosexual rams to those of ewes but and differed from those seen in heterosexual males. The difference in the amygdalae of the heterosexual and homosexual rams indicates a link to potential mate preferences. The experiment proves that the amygdala has a large effect not only the sexual behaviors of rams but their sexual orientation as well. The experiment performed by Perkin and his colleagues on male-oriented rams spread rapidly in the scientific world. Scientists further studied it to evaluate any possible social factors or other neurological aspects that may have caused such behaviors among other animals. The preoptic area (POA) is a region of the hypothalamus consisting of a medial preoptic nucleus that controls copulation in males. Expression of sexual motivation and copulatory behavior serve to create functionally adapted behaviors that may lead to fertilization of a female and successful reproduction. However when the function of the mPOA does not comply with a specific alteration these aspects vary in individuals and lead to same-sex sexual behaviors in many species. It was noted that the mPOA was more so associated with consummatory components rather than appetitive, which refers to copulatory behavior and sexual motivation respectively. An experiment that observed lesions and chemical manipulations to the rats’ mPOAs, resulted in an elimination of male-typical behavior towards females but did not have a large impact on levels of sexual motivation. Though rats with lesions did not express attraction to females they still attempted to mount with them due to associative mechanisms such as interactions between the amygdala and dopamine-dependent events. This is observed because individuals have predictive associations with sexual reinforcement when controlled by environmental stimuli based off of the responses of the amygdala. Even though the copulatory behaviors are not expressed, sexual motivation is still expressed because they are controlled and elicited separately by different areas in the rat brain. This expressed more male-male encounters because they still had a sexually drive, just not strictly towards females. This gave evidence that the functions of the amygdala and its contents control the appetitive of an organism. Regardless of the fact that an individual’s mPOA is dysfunctional, an individual’s sexual motivation is still present if their amygdala is in tact. The portions of the brain that control such sexual behaviors are largely influenced by hormonal and genetic factors as well. For example mPOA is rich in estradiol receptors and if activated male rats will exhibit maternal behaviors that are seen amongst female rats. The neurology of an individual once they begin to exhibit homosexual behaviors is fundamental to understanding the distinction between exclusively heterosexual, exclusively homosexual and bisexual animals.

Genetic Aspect

Each gene encodes for a different protein that has a specific function. Any variation in even one base of a nucleotide could cause a mutation in an individual. Scientists have begun to study the genetic sequence of animals that exhibit homosexual behaviors. Drosophila melanogaster are a model organism especially when observing genetic variation. Gailey and Hall observed the precopulatory behaviors of wild-type D. melanogasters and noted that they are sex-specific components of reproduction. Males court females through specific actions involving chemically, auditory, and visually induced signals. They were unsure where each signal was emitted from whether it was internal or external or what caused these signals to be emitted. To understand the behavioral dimorphisms the scientists searched for a mutation that would disturb the male-specific behavior as well as cause defects within the central nervous system of the flies. They came across the fruitless (fru) mutation, which is induced with x-rays and has male specific effects. A male homozygous for the fru mutant displays three significant differences in male courtship behavior from a wild type (WT) male drosophila. Normally male drosophila would curl their abdomen at a female as a form of copulation but fru mutant males do not exhibit this behavior. The lack of curling their abdomen indicated a behavioral sterility in fru mutant males. Another difference among fru and WT is that the fru mutant males court other fru males as well as WT males. Lastly, fru males stimulate normal males to court them through their own extracts that are produced as a by-product of their mutation. The experiment concluded that that this fru mutant of drosophila causes males to be behavioral sterile and engage in courtship among males including forming “courtship chains”. This experiment confirms that even a slight mutation in an individual’s genetic sequence can cause more than just physical alterations. It caused an anatomical, physiological and behavioral change within male drosophila to respond in a homosexual manner.

Please add the following section to account for the evolutionary significance of homosexual behavior in humans. Fatimmma134 (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

—————————

Evolutionary Significance
Adaptive Traits

The topic of homosexual behavior in animals has been studied in great depth across the world. There have been experiments that go in to detail about different species that exhibit same-sex sexual behavior yet only few explain if there is any evolutionary significance to such characteristics. Evolution refers to a process in which living organisms have developed or diversified from earlier forms, over time. A trait that is exhibited by members of a population is considered significant because it has been passed on successfully through generations. Such characteristics are usually advantageous for an organism’s survival, which is why they are carried on. Traits that are maladaptive or reduce an individual’s fitness should progressively be eliminated through generations due to natural selection. It has been stated many times that homosexuality would not last as a trait, evolutionarily, because it does not favor reproductive sex with women and inhibits further procreation of an individual’s generation. It is difficult to collect concrete evidence on evolutionary significance of homosexual behavior in animals over time because many of these animals do not even reproduce. Scientists instead study the way these animals behave in controlled situations where survival of the fittest comes in to play. An experiment was performed to observe male same-sex pairing as an adaptive strategy for future reproduction in termites. Colonies of termites usually consist of a monogamous pair of reproductive adults. They initially disperse as alates and shed their wings individually. Once they encounter a sexually matured individual of the opposite sex, the pair searches for a nesting site to start a new colony. When searching for a nesting site the pair runs in tandem, with the male following the female. It was expected that male same-sex pair would search for females in order to reproduce rather than search for a nesting site. The study observed single males (M), males in male-male (MM) pairs and male-female (MF) pairs to understand the advantages of male-male pairing. It was separated into three experiments in which the scientists tested nest establishment by male-male pairs, the survival advantage of male-male pairing, and the chances of reproduction during colony fusion. Single males did not establish any nests while MM and MF pairs both did. This showed that the males in a MM pair stopped searching for females and still established nests. When observing the survival rate, only the single males and the males in MM pairs were placed together to see if males work cooperatively rather than competitively. After a year the termites were collected and it was found that males in MM pairs had a better survival rate than single males. This indicates that a cooperative environment among males is more advantageous because single males had a very low survival rate when left on their own. Termite males need more than just a high survival rate to gain fitness, they must reproduce. MM and MF pairs from the first part of the experiment were fused with a new colony to observe whether long-term MM pairing can contribute to fitness. Males from MM pairs were able to mate with females from incipient colonies. The scientists formulated mathematical models to confirm all their findings and to account for any possible variables. They took the risk of predation into consideration when calculating the relative fitness along with the chance of reproduction. It was discovered that even if the chance of reproduction is low, given a high predation pressure, it is more advantageous to partake in a long-term male-male pair because this increases their survival rate from the start, while still giving them the opportunity to reproduce in the near future. The study claims that sexual and same-sex encounters determine the fitness of same-sex sexual behavior. However ecological factors, such as predation, determine any other related advantages.

By-Product of Sexually Selected Traits

Homosexual behavior is a trait or characteristic exhibited by certain species. In some cases the cost of being in a same-sex pair is much less than it costs to be in a heterosexual pair. For example when engaged in a same-sex pair the energy that goes into searching, courting, mating, reproducing and taking care of offspring with a mate of the opposite sex is decreased. Instead that energy could be used towards a less costly deed because rather than trying to “impress” a mate of the opposite sex, same-sex pairs are aware of the benefits that lie in pairing with on another. By pairing with the same sex it is thought that the pair acknowledges the advantages in being with one another over being with an organism of the opposite sex. However interpretations of these behaviors can be misunderstood if one does not understand the motivational factors and beneficial outcomes of them. Its prevalence has caused great scholars and scientists to question the adaptive significance and whether homosexual behavior in animals is an adaptive trait on its own that was passed down, or if it is a by-product of other sexually selected traits. The homosexual behaviors in crickets, Gryllus Veletis, were evaluated to understand how they are evolutionarily derived. The scientists tested whether same-sex sexual behaviors (SSSB) were socially adaptive, sexually adaptive, correlated with other sexual behaviors and/or a result of misidentification. The scientists controlled the levels of aggression, dietary intake, sexual experience, audience composition, body mass/size and mate attraction signaling time and correlated the results with the levels of SSSB in each individual. All of these variables are manipulated by introducing stimuli that causes the brain of each individual to respond differently. The experiment rejects the socially and sexually adaptive hypotheses but accepts that SSSB in crickets are due to phenotypic correlations and/or misidentification. Positive correlation between aggression and chance of individual engaging in same-sex pairing indicated a covariance of SSSB levels with levels of other sexually selected traits When observing the dietary intake and behavioral cues like attraction signaling found that foods with high carbohydrates gave rise to males with higher fitness, leading to an increase in sexually attractive chemical compounds. The compounds attracted both sexes, which led to homosexual behaviors due to misidentification. It validates the very popular statement that homosexual behavior in animals is a by-product of high levels of sexual activity in general.

Coexisting Genetic Factor

Homosexuality among humans is a topic that is misinterpreted by many. Multiple studies have suggested that the prenatal endocrine environment greatly influences human sexual orientation. However more recent studies have discovered that life-long sexual orientation can be determined by the interaction of biological factors such as genetic susceptibility, with postnatal social factors. When observing homosexuality amongst males, it is noted that homosexual males are less fecund and produce fewer offspring than heterosexual men. However when there are compensatory mechanisms present, the genes influencing homosexuality have the potential to remain stable. A study comparing the fecundity of paternal and maternal non-parental female relatives of homosexual and heterosexual males was performed to understand this paradox. The scientists observed if kin selection, maternal effects, sexually antagonisitic selection and/or overdominance were possible compensatory mechanisms for the reduced fecundity of homosexuals. After conducting various controlled experiments with aunts, grandmothers and mothers of the maternal and paternal lines of heterosexual and homosexual males the results obtained supported the sexually antagonistic selection hypothesis. The sexually antagonistic selection proposes and evolutionary arms race between males and females. In this case the scientists suggest that a low fecundity in homosexual males is compensated with a high fecundity in the maternal female lines of homosexual males. There was no difference among the paternal female lines of heterosexual and homosexual males, eliminating the overdominance hypothesis. However the fact that the total fecundity of all female relatives of homosexual males was much higher than that of heterosexual males, indicated a genetic mechanism involving the X-chromosome. This genetic contribution to fecundity introduced by sexually antagonistic selection provides evidence that increased maternal line female fecundity significantly compensates for reduced fecundity of male homosexuals. This selection satisfies the stability that such genetic factors that influence male homosexuality never go extinct and are not transmitted to all males in any population. It also satisfies the suggestion that compared to heterosexuality homosexuality exists at a lower frequency. It was concluded that these results are a coexisting factor potentially influencing homosexuality in males and not a by-product of fraternal birth order effect. This experiment provides evidence of evolutionary significance through genetic factors, which is a monumental for the study of homosexuality in human and non-human species. Fatimmma134 (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Homosexual behavior in animals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070713004634/http://www.niwascience.co.nz/pubs/mr/archive/2007-04-10-3 to http://www.niwascience.co.nz/pubs/mr/archive/2007-04-10-3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Homosexual behavior in animals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080228025016/http://af.czu.cz/~bartos/publications/pdf/Bartos_Holeckova_2006.pdf to http://af.czu.cz/~bartos/publications/pdf/Bartos_Holeckova_2006.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Better references (1~4) and scholarly rigour needed
The opening statements for this article, especially those stating the universality of homesxual behaviour throughout the animal kingdom, could do with references from scholarly literature that is a bit more robust. This is important because the quality of the entire article relies on the thesis statement and its science. Also please consider fixing the following problems:

1. References 1 & 2 are the same article republished elsewhere. If a better reference can not be found to replace ref.1, the duplicated reference (ref 2.) needs to be deleted.

2 Reference 4 is the same as reference 3 (I.e. Ref 3 is the original work, and ref 4 is the same work reproduced elsewhere). The original work (ref 3) is sufficient and ref 4 should be deleted.

3 Research that is more scholarly rigorous and tidying up the opening paragraph and its references will greatly improve the article. Dr.khatmando (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

4. Please add citation to References 121. Hutt,Sidney John, and Corinne Hutt. "Direct observation and measurement of behavior." )1970)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Real JS (talk • contribs) 04:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you find problems with the article you are welcome to fix them but see WP:PRIMARY. Richerman    (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2017
Please place citation at the end of source to support its claim. Both male and female pigeons sometimes exhibit homosexual behavior. In addition to sexual behavior same-sex pigeon pairs will build nests, and hens will lay (infertile) eggs and attempt to incubate them. [121]The Real JS (talk) 04:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC) The Real JS (talk) 04:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Source not added as none was found. Sparkling Pessimist   Scream at me!  04:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

homosexuality of animals
Animals show homosexual behavior. This statement is an oxymoron. Homo is Latin for human. Animals are called beasts. So it should be beastsexuality or a more correct terminology -bestiality-. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.86.20 (talk • contribs)
 * Saying that animals show homosexual behavior is not an oxymoron. This type of phrasing has been used in research literature. The line of argument that you present for justifying how the phrasing is oxymoronic is flawed. As stated on the relevant wiki article, the word homosexual is a Greek and Latin hybrid, with the first element derived from Greek ὁμός homos, meaning "same." It is not related to the Latin word homo, meaning "man", thus the word homosexual connotes sexual acts and affections between members of the same sex. As animals of the same sex do display sexual behavior with each other, the word homosexual can be used to describe their behavior. Bestiality is no where near a correct terminology for homosexual behavior in animals; it has a variety of meanings and the specific sexual meaning that it has is not a correct description for same-sex sexual behaviour between animals mentioned in this article. —Human10.0 (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Human10.0, how much content are you looking to add to this article? I ask because you've been making large additions, and this is already a big article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Flyer22 Reborn, I currently want to add more information about homosexual behavior in the animals already mentioned in the article. There is also a significant amount of information (e.g., in books and scientific journals) about homosexual behavior in certain animals not mentioned in the article. I would like to add that information too. I hope that is okay. —Human10.0 (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm just trying to keep WP:SIZE in mind. If some of the material is better suited for the sub-articles, then consider those sub-articles. This is per WP:Summary style. If there is anything that can be validly split off into its own article, then also consider doing that per WP:Summary style. If it's better to have the material in this article, than that is fine; we just need to keep WP:SIZE in mind. Also, too many subheadings from the table of contents can overwhelm readers and make the article look bigger than it is. So we shouldn't create additional subheadings unless needed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for informing me about the appropriate options for this article and for directing me to the Wiki guidelines, Flyer22 Reborn. After reading them, I feel that the "Some selected species and groups" section of this article can branch off into sub-articles. I think that ideally the "Some selected species and groups" section of this article should be in summary style while the topics summarized in that section should be expanded in more detail in sub-articles, one on "Homosexual behavior in mammals" and the other on "Homosexual behavior in birds." However, sub-articles on homosexual behavior in mammals and in birds do not currently exist on Wikipedia (typing "Homosexual behavior in birds" in the search bar leads to this article's subsection on birds), so it seems the most relevant place on Wikipedia for adding info on homosexual behavior in animals is still this article. I definitely feel that sub-articles/child articles on "Homosexual behavior in mammals" and "Homosexual behavior in birds" can be created as they meet the general notability guideline. I would create them myself but I currently do not have enough time.
 * One could argue that I could add details of homosexual behavior in animals (e.g., their same-sex courtship ritual) on each animal's own individual Wiki article instead of on this article, where it's lengthening the article. I hope to add info on each animal's individual page too, in the future, but I think that information should also be added to this article because someone who wants to learn about homosexual behavior in various animals is more likely to visit this article, instead of the individual Wiki articles of each animal they can think of. Another issue with adding info about homosexual behavior of an animal on its own Wiki article is where to add that info, since many times, the article lacks an appropriate place or section (e.g., a general section on sexual behaviors) to add that info. I've noticed that sexual behavior of animals is often discussed in the "Reproductive behavior" section, so only the opposite-sex sexual behavior gets discussed. If sub-articles on homosexual behavior in mammals and birds get created, then I think details of homosexual behavior of animals should be moved to their appropriate sub-articles with summaries to replace them in this article (e.g., details of the same-sex courtship ritual of wild sheep could be moved to the homosexual behavior in mammals sub-article while this article could just state in the sheep section that wild sheep engage in a same-sex courtship ritual).
 * Since there aren't sub-articles about homosexual behavior in animals and since this article has not yet crossed the 100kB mark after which dividing it into sub-articles would be essential, I feel that for the time being, additional content or examples of homosexual behavior in animals should be added to this article, and then any material that could be moved to the sub-articles should be moved there, if said sub-articles are created. What are your thoughts on this? I will also refrain from adding some detailed content to the article that I previously intended to add.
 * I agree with your point about too many subheadings in the table of contents being overwhelming. We could remedy this using H:LIMITTOC. —Human10.0 (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Good points. I also considered the route of adding details of homosexual behavior in animals on each animal's own individual Wikipedia article. That's certainly another option, and you shouldn't let any of the articles currently only or mainly discussing reproductive behavior discourage you from adding homosexual material to the articles. As for expanding this article further, feel free. I just wanted to bring up the matters I brought up. And, yeah, if we need to use TOC limit, I'm fine with that. As for a "Homosexual behavior in mammals" article and a "Homosexual behavior in birds" article, we have the List of mammals displaying homosexual behavior and List of birds displaying homosexual behavior articles. Those two articles can be renamed so that the titles do not designate them as lists. I definitely don't think we should have all four articles (for example, both a "Homosexual behavior in mammals" article and a "List of mammals displaying homosexual behavior" article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2017
In the mammals section I would like to add, according to Dr. Carin Bondar, elephants (family Elephantidae) and spotted hyenas (Crocuta crocuta), are well known for having "pentile-clitoris" structures. It is impossible to have sex with females without consent because they must retract their penile-clitoris back into their bodies first. In spotted hyenas, the females penile-clitoris are extremely complex and a pesudoscrotum is formed by their external labia fusing together. They are also able to achieve erections .The Real JS 02:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

References Bondar, C, (2016). Wild sex: The science behind mating in the animal kingdom. First Pegasus Books hardcover edition. New York: Pegasus Books, 2016. The Real JS 02:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This article is about homosexual behavior in animals not sexual behavior in animals Sparkling Pessimist   Scream at me!  02:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Homosexual behavior in animals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20121209082203/http://endo.endojournals.org/cgi/reprint/145/2/478 to http://endo.endojournals.org/cgi/reprint/145/2/478
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090123213518/http://www.timelessspirit.com/SEPT04/cristina.shtml to http://www.timelessspirit.com/SEPT04/cristina.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110519005633/http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/vecase/Behavior/Spring2004/laird/Social%20Organization.htm to http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/vecase/Behavior/Spring2004/laird/Social%20Organization.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070914010938/http://www.teri.res.in/teriin/terragreen/issue3/feature.htm to http://www.teri.res.in/teriin/terragreen/issue3/feature.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Help me with editing
I have collected extensive material on the topic, I will gradually add. But English is not native to me. I can not qualitatively retell the text of the quote. I ask you to correct my spelling, and if possible, instead of quoting, I should retell the quoted one. Путеец (talk) 07:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Modus operandi of the User:Путеец
User:Путеец, DO NOT DELETE the information from the article (escpecially from the intro) just because you dont like it. If the info in this artcle existe for month and years, you can NOT delete it without disscussion, especially if there is an objection against such removing an info. M.Karelin (talk) 10:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC) I noticed that you added other sources, such as comedy video authors. Scientific sources such as Nature, published 500. Путеец (talk) 10:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You have made a lot of vandal removals over the last day. Including deletion of information from intro. Are these double standards? Путеец (talk) 10:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You deleted very important info from the article (which existed here for month and years) without even discussions. The standrat of sources in en wiki and ru wiki are quite different. You can NOT call BBC a propaganda source here. M.Karelin (talk) 10:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Was the statement of Bailey in the article two days ago ?? M.Karelin (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I am sorry for deleting the statement of Simon LeVay, I did not notice it was in the article before. I am SORRY for that. M.Karelin (talk) 10:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You also deleted very important information from the article (which existed here for months and years) without any discussion (Simon LeVay). Only I explained the reason for the deletion on talk page and you are not. Are these double standards? Путеец (talk) 10:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I said I AM SORRY above. I am human being you know. M.Karelin (talk) 10:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you think the BBC is not a source of information, but a blog source? She writes and produces science comedy videos! Путеец (talk) 10:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Besides the BBC, there are many other sources about that event. Did'nt you notice that ?? M.Karelin (talk) 10:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thats why it is written - Other sources describe. If this was the only numbers in the Intro, I d remove it, but now its just show, that there are other sources too, and there is NO contradiction - one researcher can found 500 species, the other one - 1500. There is NO contradiction. M.Karelin (talk) 11:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

User Путеец about Bøckman and SCOTUS in Russian wikipedia
To prove the modus operandi of the User Путеец, just look what he wrote in ru wiki, ,. In two first sentences he accused Bøckman in fraud and propaganda, and in the third one he tried to prove me that the SCOTUS (US Supreme Court) is a political instrument. That is the Modus operandi of the User. M.Karelin (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

More recent sources?
Hoping to move things on, Bagemihl is not the only source for an overview of this topic. It might be useful to consult Volker Sommer and Paul Vasey (eds), Homosexual Behaviour in Animals - an evolutionary perspective (CUP 2006). I have found a book review of this from the journal Animal Behaviour (can share a PDF if anyone interested), but I'm not currently in a position to lay my hands on a copy of the book. Does anyone else have access? FrankP (talk) 10:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, silly me, I see it is already referenced in the article. Perhaps there is more that can be got from this more recent source, anyway


 * As far as I'm aware, Bagemihl is the only comprehensive survey there that has been done across the whole field of zoology. Other works (Roughgarden, Sommer & Vasey, MacFarlane & al. etc) all centre on particular aspects of the field. Bagemihls book is starting to show some age, but it's still the only one of its kind (and I expect we won't see a similar volume any time soon). Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for info. FrankP (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Bagemihl says: "Same-sex courtship, sexual, pair-bonding, and/or parenting behaviors have been documented in the scientific literature in at least 167 species of mammals, 132 birds, 32 reptiles and amphibians 15 fishes, and 125 insects and other invertebrates, for a total of 471 species. (see part 2 and appendix for a complete list). These figures do not include domesticated animals (at least another 19 species; see the appendix), nor species in which only sexually immature animals/juveniles engage in homosexual activities" Путеец (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Full list on Bagemihl count 626 species in appendix include Nonreproductive, Alternative Heterosexualities and Parthenogenesis Путеец (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * if You did not use other sources, then these figures are the most accurate Путеец (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Friends, I call for peace. Believe it or not, the most accurate figure of animals that Bagemihl somehow considered homosexual is 490 471+19. Write a reference to him and to this figure. It will be exact, scientifically. Путеец (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Bagemihl did not considered animals "homosexual". This article is not about sexual orientation, this is about Homosexual behavior in animals. 2) Why you think, that the most accurate figure is 490 471+19 ?? M.Karelin (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not think, I just counted. Путеец (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I dont know how did you counted, but counting by your own violates this policy. M.Karelin (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, in fact, it doesn't. It's a common misconception that NOR prohibits drawing a conclusion from a source.  That's not in fact true.  NOR prohibits drawing a conclusion or inference from a work that isn't stated by the source.  (That being said, your #1 above is apt.)   Ravenswing   01:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The political motivation" - what it meant, and some notes of the 1500 species
Hallo people!

As I am the originator of the "political motivation" I'd like to give some context. The quote is from an English translation of an interview I gave to "Apollon", an university paper for the University of Oslo mostly reporting on research news, original article on-line here. The comment was aimed at the (at the time) well known initiative Archive, Library and Museum Development (abr. ABMU in Norwegian), a governmental committee to give grants to revitalize the usually somewhat dusty world of archives, libaries and museums. This initiative ran for a handful of years, and having largely achieved it's objectives is now disbanded.

The idea behind the initiative was to better engage these institutions in the popular debate by encourage them to comment on or exhibit on their knowledge on controversial subjects. This lead to various institutions publishing books or making exhibits on subjects like the history of Romani people in Norway, the lives of collaborators during the 2nd World War, asylums and orphanages and so on. The contribution of the Natural History Museum at the University of Oslo where I work was the Against Nature? exhibition, on homosexuality among animals. At the time, it ended up being the by far most visible and most cited of all the ABMU initiatives. The political comment was an acknowledgement to the grant we received from ABMU helping financing the exhibition (the grant covered about 1/3 of the cost if I remember correctly).

My comment on the "political motive" is a reference to the ABMU. We made the exhibit as our contribution to exhibit knowledge on controversial topics. It was not a reaction to persecution by anyone at the museum, nor an attempt at pontificating about politics. We very conspicuously avoided any comments on politics, focusing instead on what animals engage in homosexual behaviour and in the cases where function known why. While the original exhibition stuck strictly to what we know animals are up to, a more politicized version was later shown in Stockholm, Sweden as "Rainbow Animals". You'll have to ask the Swedes about that one, I was not involved.

I'm sorry if this wasn't quite the conspiracy you were after.

The 1500 species bandied about is the tally on animals species where "non-reproductive" sex is known, compiled by Bruce Bagemihl from his book Biologival exuberance, which was the most thorough survey of homosexual behaviour in animals at the time. Most of this tally is based on reports of single or just a handful of observation, and is not well understood. About 500 of them are however larger or well known species (mostly mammals and birds) where we have a fairly decent idea of the frequency and/or social function of same-sex mating. Most of these species are covered in this article. The numbers are just reporting on the state of knowledge at the time, nothing more. I quite enjoyed bandying these numbers about at the time in interviews, as they are nice, memorable numbers and have good "shock value" showing we're not dealing with just a handful of queer cats and dogs.

I hope this satisfies your curiosity at the wording. Petter Bøckman (talk) 11:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Bagemihl mentions in his book “more than 450 species”. Do you have the rest of the list? ~1000 species? Путеец (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * It's been a few years, but I'll have a look at it tomorrow at work. Basically it's a whole species appendix at the back of Bagemihls book. If I remember correctly, it includes a few cases of animals with obvious hormonal disturbances like "perruque deer" who sometimes try to mate with males, single observations (there's a blue-ring octopus and a woodpecker that has only been observed mating in the wild once, both observations was of mating between two males) and a few where mating associated behaviour (displaying, necking and similar) were observed, but not the actual mating. This is the reason I stick rather strictly to the term "exhibiting homosexual behaviour", rather than claiming an animal is gay. Petter Bøckman (talk) 11:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That is why we wrote "homosexual behaviour", but not they are gay, LOL. M.Karelin (talk) 12:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The name of article is Homosexual behavior in animals, I wish User Путеец understood this simple thing. M.Karelin (talk) 12:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the time you took for this extensive explanation! One more question, please. Bagemihl mentions in his book “more than 450 species” that engage in same-sex activity (which is not necessarily sexual, e.g. female seagulls rearing chicks together). That means that that the rest (about 1050 species) refer to heterosexual non reproductive activity, am I right? 100 are insects and worms, whose same sex behavior happens due to errors in identification of a partner because of disability or traces of female pheromones of on male’s cuticle. In the animal index in my eBook are listed about 626 species, including subspecies and transvestism. Would you be so kind to specify the exact number of species that have been spotted in homosexual behavior, excluding transvestism, hatching partnerships, etc. Thanks in advance. Путеец (talk) 12:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * User Путеец, please read very carefully what Bøckman wrote, and do not try, as always, to change and distort the meaning of the words of another person. M.Karelin (talk) 12:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * User Путеец, since English is not your native language, I ask you, before drawing conclusions from what the other editors write here, carefully read and re-read what is written one more time, and only then draw conclusions. And again - do not take the words out of context. M.Karelin (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem? Stop please. says: "The 1500 species bandied about is the tally on animals species where "non-reproductive" sex is known, compiled by Bruce Bagemihl from his book Biologival exuberance". My eBook are listed 626 species, include Nonreproductive, Alternative Heterosexualities and Parthenogenesis Путеец (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "The 1500 species bandied about is the tally on animals species where "non-reproductive" sex is known, compiled by Bruce Bagemihl from his book Biologival exuberance, which was the most thorough survey of homosexual behaviour in animals at the time." One again - READ more carefully. A "Non-reproductive" sex is a very large definition, and it includes such sex between a male and a female. Please don't tell me that the figures provided by Bøckman included sex between males and females. M.Karelin (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of the observations of the 1000 species in question is of mating between same-sex partners, however it's mostly single or very limited observations, and the number do include a few dubious observations where the actual act is has not been observed or, the sex of the two involved is not 100% established and so on. This is the reason for the wording "has been observed" for that number, and the smaller number being restricted to more well observed and well understood cases. While the first category might seem unsatisfactory, it needs to be remembered that we do not know all a species terribly well. Most species are actually only known by a few anatomical traits, some are even only described from fragments, we don't really know their distribution, diet or habitat, let alone their sexual habits. Petter Bøckman (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * It's very helpful of you to give us this extra background, thank you. On the question of "political motivation", it seems reasonable to me to interpret it in this context in a non-sinister way, as referring to the awareness-raising or educational aspect of the work. There is no reason why that can't be a proper goal of a funding institution, just as university professorships and other posts in Public Understanding of Science have become fairly widespread. This sort of initiative is political in that it has social or attitudinal change as its aim. It is therefore distinct from a more strictly "scientific motivation", where (for example) a conference will be organised with the aim of furthering research in a particular area for its own sake and not for purposes related to informing the public as such. Neither activity is necessarily better or worse than the other, they are simply different motivations. FrankP (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I too consider the Archive-Library-Museum Development initiative as being benign. They did not ask for any specific topics. We could have proposed anything we felt was likely to raise eye-brows, from man-eating animals to the benefits of ecological excluding humans from parts of the Globe (see Involuntary park). Also, the only thing we received was some extra funding for the specific exhibition. The initiative coincided with a debate on adoption, where the wording "unnatural" was bandied around, and we felt this was were our knowledge could have some relevance. Some years later we managed to get another small grant for the role of evolution in modern society and it's social impact with regard to immigrants from countries with little scientific literacy. Petter Bøckman (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you  I appreciate the time you took to write this extensive explanation. My Bruce Bagemihl's ebook lists 626 species, among them are Nonreproductive, Alternative Heterosexualities and Parthenogenesis. Most observations are single or very limited, and some observations are quite dubious, where the actual act has not been identified or the sex of the involved was not 100% established and so on. Could you please clarify where the 1500 figure, and most recent 1000 came from? Perhaps you have another edition of the book or there are other sources? This number is very important and it in itself became political. It got into a lot of books and online publications, and I hope that the truth will be published here. I understand that same-sex behavior was observed in 626 species and documented in about 500 species. Путеец (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Look at the words of the User Путеец: "This number is very important and it in itself became political. It got into a lot of books and online publications, and I hope that the truth will be published here. " He still says the same things and use the same words, he did not undertand anything yet. M.Karelin (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I sympathise with your frustration Миша Карелин but I wonder if we should not stress too much whether the number of species in which homosexual behaviour has so far been observed / documented is around 500 or 1000 or 1500. It is presumably a hard to define and ever-changing (increasing) number. And we don't even know within an order of magnitude (or more) how many species there are on Earth, but it's many millions. Perhaps we should be less worried about attempting precision here. Just a thought FrankP (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Compare: 1) "homosexual behavior is widespread in nature and there are 1500 species of animals." 2) "Homosexual behavior is almost never found in nature, and is observed in about 500 species, out of 1200000 species, mainly in insects due to identification errors and in birds that do not have sex in couples." Where is the truth, and where is propaganda? Think and change the article so that I will not be accused of war. Путеец (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you see what's going on ?? He accused us in propaganda (see above), claiming us that we used the word "widespread" in Intro (no such thing), then he makes an original reserches (see his option N2). The only thing he does here, is POV-pushing. M.Karelin (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not talk about the intro. Путеец (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Misha, yes I believe I do see what is going on, I suppose what I am saying is that we all have choices about how we respond to what is going on. I did regret bringing in the number of species globally, but here's another suggestion for an interpretation: (3) out of X million (X unknown) species, for the few thousand which have been observed at all closely, in the minority of cases where observers have actively and honestly looked at whether homosexual behaviour occurs, then in at least 1000 species, and possibly more (difficult to tell, but does the exact number matter here?) it has been observed, and in many cases (half?) documented in detail, as a behaviour-type whose frequency varies greatly between species from rare to fairly common. Who thinks that is an accurate summary? 20:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this is a bit confusing. Current option is the best, maximum what we can change is make a small correction in 1500 figure (in the last sentence of Intro) after Bockman whould give us the exact number. M.Karelin (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Understood, I should have clarified -- I'm not suggesting this as wording for the article :), but as a talking point within this discussion about the proper interpretation of the facts. FrankP — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankP (talk • contribs) 20:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I am very soory, but that would look very confusing for the readers. А lot of unnecessary figures in it. M.Karelin
 * Yes I agree. I said, "I am not suggesting this as wording for the article". FrankP (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk) 20:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I didn't have time to recheck my sources at work today (had to do work related stuff), but I'll make sure to look it up for you . I'm fairly certain I checked and rechecked again the numbers, knowing fully I would get in hot water for being sloppy. This was the first museum exhibition we did with actual references in the label texts, due to the somewhat unusual claims we made. Asking for the specifics is absolutely fine, and I'll do my best to provide you with the proper reference. Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia, you corrected the number of 450 species for 1500 species only on August 13, 2007, apparently after the end of the exhibition. Maybe this will help remember the methodology of calculating 1500 species. We are waiting for clarification, thanks! --Путеец (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanky you for trying to clear this up, . The number 1500 is actually found it the exhibition text (I looked it up yesterday), and the interview with the Norwegian language Apollon was done before the exhibition opened, so it's not something that was changed after the exhibition closed. I've tried to read up on our old sources to see if I can track down where I found those numbers, but I've had to back-to-back meetings all day and haven't made much time to read up. Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you ! Could you participate in our work? There were a few questions, and there are not enough biologists. My edits, unfortunately, are immediately canceled. I apologize if you misunderstand me because of the translation, I see that if I translate some of my messages, they may seem strange. Today I translated my text from Russian, it's even worse. If you find that an error has occurred in the exhibition documents, apply this change, which I proposed here, or return it . I want to say that what is written about me here, probably because of the translator, and because of the difficulties of translation. My opponent did not exactly translate my words. Please forgive him.--Путеец (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well this is not truth. When Путеец used the russian word "подтасовка" in ruwiki, that had only one meaning - "fraud", or "manupulation" (of facts). Besides, even here in en wiki when I ask him  about his understanding of the words of  regarding "politically motivated" statement, the User Путеец wrote: Any exaggeration without justification, capable of influencing social life or politics is political. Especially this exhibition was supported by the government. Remember the Colin Powell test tube. Petter Bockman, a zoologist who helped put the show together, admitted that "there is a political motive". So who wrote those words ?? Huh ?? User Путеец, you know we all can make mistakes, but instead to say sorry to Bockman, you still accusing me in misunderstanding. This is not nice. You could just say sorry to Bockman !! M.Karelin (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Give him time. If he, unlike us, does not have an e-book but a paper one, then it will be more difficult to search, and it will take time. In any case, and I'm sure of it, he will correct the error when he reads it. The book of Badjmil had two editions. What - I do not know., could you help Bekman? Please write here how many animals in your book. Look at your copy. I'm tired of writing this number. I just want Wikipedia to write the truth. Thank you. --Путеец (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The exhibition was held 12 years ago. Do not forget about it. Bockman hardly thought that someone would question his words that is why he does not keep the papers on his desk for you. But it means nothing - the exhibition was held at the University, it was organized by scientists, and it was widely covered by famous medias. M.Karelin (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The source of the figure is the book of Bagemihl. Find it please and find it here, how many species there are.Write here who has the book. Count please. --Путеец (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Take it easy, Gents. It's weekend, all the relevant stuff is in my office. I'll get back to try to retrace my steps on Monday. All this was a decade ago, surely it doesn't have to happen tonight? Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

According to Baghemil
I wonder, did this edit was discussed with other editors before it was made ?? M.Karelin (talk) 05:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please tell me who of the editors agreed to delete the source of Bockman ?? M.Karelin (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I proposed this change on February 28. Yesterday asked if there are opponents of this change. Today you performed the editing in the article. I thought that you are not against these changes. I ask the Administrators to evaluate the actions of . --Путеец (talk) 05:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Show me that proposition. Where did you write about it ?? Where it was discussed (??), I would like to join to that discussion. M.Karelin (talk) 05:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, colleague, I will help you. --Путеец (talk) 05:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I wonder who agreed to delete an info about 1500 species and Oslo exhibition ?? Did you suggest to delete an information about 1500 species and Oslo exhibition (??) (which is based on several sources). What does it mean "No one has objected to this change". ?? M.Karelin (talk) 05:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1500 species were observed only in the materials of the organizers of the exhibition. In nature, no one has observed as many species. --Путеец (talk) 05:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What does it even mean ? I wonder is that what Bockman or sources said ? M.Karelin (talk) 05:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * He did not say anything, perhaps because of your false report accusing him of fraud, which was blocked. But he pointed out the source of this figure. I will forever leave Wikipedia, and free you from opposition if you find in it 1500 species of animals in book Bagemihl. Start counting, please. --Путеец (talk) 05:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * He said many things about that number, just read more carefully what he wrote. And please do not mislead colleagues again. M.Karelin (talk) 05:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

explain the reasons for which you indicated the number 1500. This became a policy. They try to block me, because I carefully read the sources. Help me. In Wikipedia, you corrected the number of 450 species for 1500 species only on August 13, 2007 apparently after the end of the exhibition. Maybe this will help remember the methodology of calculating 1500 species. We are waiting for clarification, thanks! --Путеец (talk) 06:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Gents; I'm trying to reread the various sources we used for the exhibition to track down exactly where that number came from. It's a bit to go through, though (Bagemihl alone is more than 700 rather dense pages, and Roughgarden is not far behind), and I do have other things to do at work, so I will have to ask you to exercise some patience. Petter Bøckman (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Your attention to this is appreciated, but I agree we should be patient, and you shouldn't be made to feel up against a deadline. It's an important number, but I'm sure the article as a whole does not "live or die", so to speak, based on whether we can back up 500, 1000 or 1500 at this moment. Let's go with what we have good sources for at this time. FrankP (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I've edited Wikipedia quite a bit myself, and know how frustrating it is to wait for slow editors. I would like to get to the bottom of this as much as anyone else, so I have no choice but to retrace my steps (in the middle of a busy work schedule). Petter Bøckman (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The scientific value of mentioning 1500 species of animals and homosexual behavior
To the best of my knowledge the “1500” number was coined by Petter Bøckman, work as a ”jack of all trades” at the museums school service, who got inspired by the book of a gay linguist Bagemihl, published by a publishing company devoted to romance and fantasy novels, and edited by “Stonewall inn” — the famous gay bar. No scientific publication I have come across cites this number. Bagemihl mentions in his book “more than 450 species”, of which about 100 are insects and worms, whose same sex behavior happens due to errors in identification of a partner because of disability or traces of female pheromones of on male’s cuticle. Birds in same-sex relationship also do not engage in sexual activity, for example, geese—according to Lorenz— mate only with females. Lorenz also describes how primates simulate coital movements as display of dominance. It has no sexual meaning or sexual motivation whatsoever. In fact, none of the species in nature actually engage in penetrative homosexual activity. We are talking about same sex behavior that in nearly all cases has no sexual context. As wrote Frank Beach: “I don't know any authenticated instance of males or females in the animal world preferring a homosexual partner. There is mounting of males by males, but without intromission of the penis or climax. There's also mounting of females by female (and makes by females) I'm not even sure we should call mounting sexual.” In addition, cannibalism, “pedophilia”, “coprophagy”, “necrophilia” are usual in the animal world, and occur in a much larger number of species, and are much more common. I regard the mention of 1500 species with homosexual behavior as manipulative and misleading, that only reflects the bias of the author. Therefore I suggest to remove this unsubstantiated and misinforming number and use the number of species whose same-sex behaviour has been documented, that is about 450. Путеец (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the article is unclear and seems to pit the numbers 450 and 1500 against each other, but the sources attached to the sentence citing 1500 seem to consistently use the word "observed", while the 450 number's references use "documented". Perhaps you haven't come across this figure in literature because they're simply instances of observed behavior, and haven't been published (which is what I think the distinction is between observed and. documented). Also, this is just any behavior and not specifically sex. Do we have reason to distrust the University of Oslo's exhibition which utilized the number in 2006? You haven't provided any sources which might discredit this claim, so I don't think the sentence should be removed just yet. I don't know who Joan Rugganger or Lorenz or Frank Beach are. Rhinopias (talk) 18:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that this edit gives less credibility to the number. Rhinopias (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The authors of numbers 450 and 1500 are not neutral. Путеец (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Something went wrong with the editing. Путеец (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You deleted the statements of biologists, but left a quote from a linguist who does not have a special education. Please return this text . Путеец (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Feel free to remove any of the quotes from the lead. I removed your contributions with that edit of mine for two reasons. One, your text In all other animal species, with the exception of humans, individuals who participate in same-sex sexual interactions are also involved in heterosexuals is a mischaracterization of the reference you used, Bailey et al.. On pages 68–69: "Exclusive same-sex sexual orientation across the life course is, however, extremely rare among animals …" (emphasis mine). This is not what you wrote.
 * Two, the lead section of this article is already a mess. The purpose of the section is to be "an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents", not to be a place for many detailed quotes or information not present in the body of the article. Subsections could be added to #Research. I only removed the content that you added and did not purposefully evaluate other content in the section. Rhinopias (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Bailey et al. says: "Approximately 6% to 10% of rams in these domestic breeds choose to court and mount other rams, but never ewes, when given a choice (Roselli, Larkin, Resko, Stellflug, & Stormshak, 2004). During some mounts between rams, penile-anal intromission and ejaculation occurs (Perkins & Fitzgerald, 1997). In all other animal species, with the exception of humans, individu-als that engage in same-sex genital interactions engage in heterosexual ones as well." Путеец (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * My mistake, so you added a copyright violation not a misinterpretation.
 * I don't think the sentence is very clear; some content in #Research contradicts the statement that Bailey et al. make of all "individuals" besides individuals of the few species specified. Regardless of that being a very large statement for the authors to make without directly attributing any other published work, all of this doesn't belong in the lead. A quick summary (such as "Rarely do non-human animals engage solely in homosexual behavior") is all that is warranted. The research on this particular aspect of homosexual behavior in non-human animals can be expanded in the body of the article. Rhinopias (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

No scientific source says 1,500 species of homosexual animals. Here is the news of the exposition in the scientific source (Nature). About 500 species are mentioned. The number 1500 was used for political and propaganda purposes, as they say in the very news of BBC, where the number 1500 was first published. "An American commentator said it was an example of "propaganda invading the scientific world". Petter Bockman, a zoologist who helped put the show together, admitted that "there is a political motive"." All references that contain this number (1500) are not scientific and should be deleted. Путеец (talk) 07:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Help with this situation until it grew into a world war of revisions. Путеец (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC) Help! Путеец (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Dont worry. Such called " world war of revisions" will be will be stopped by blocks. Especially after admins whould see your Modus operandi. For example, you just accused very famous Western medias in "political propaganda" - . We are lucky you did not use the term of Russian law - "propaganda of homosexualism". M.Karelin (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * All self-respecting media, when making a mistake, make an announcement. I think after reading this page they will make a refutation. See scientific source says 1,500 species of homosexual animals Путеец (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding this, WP:Pings only work with a new signature. Remember to sign your posts. As for this dispute, I don't have the time to help out with this. But I will state now that mental disorders do not apply to non-human animals. Not truly. Despite the term pedophilia sometimes being misused to apply to non-human animals, it is a human disorder. There are cases of non-human adults being sexual with non-human juveniles, but that does not make it pedophilia. We have no idea what is going on in the minds of non-human animals. Furthermore, even in the case of humans, child sexual abuse is not the same thing as pedophilia. When it comes to cannibalism, coprophagy and necrophilia, those are all acts that apply to humans and non-human animals. And something like necrophilia can be considered a disorder when applied to humans. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * For some information on mental disorders regarding non-human animals, see Mental disorder. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually asked for help with the deletion of false information about 1500 species of animals, and with the opponent who is waging a war of revisions. Путеец (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I see that you asked me to help. I linked to it, and signed your post for you. You also stated above, "In addition, cannibalism, 'pedophilia', 'coprophagy', 'necrophilia' are usual in the animal world, and occur in a much larger number of species, and are much more common." I noted that I don't have the time to get involved with all of this. But since I saw the topic of disorders mixed in, I decided to comment on that. Disorders have been studied in relation to non-human animals, but they usually are not applied to non-human animals and some researchers have crafted different models for them due to problems with associating human disorders with non-human animals. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "homosexuality has been observed in over 1,500 species" - disinformation without scientific confirmation! Why is she in the article? ! Путеец (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Look at the sources - it is not a disinformation. And the info was given with the name reference, is not it enough ?? M.Karelin (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No scientific source says 1,500 species of homosexual animals.  This is the erroneous opinion of a jack of all trades helping to make an exhibition. Путеец (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

, I propose to change the line to quote:

From: "Bagemihl, in 1999, described more than 450 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, documented exhibiting same-sex sexual behaviors. According to zoologist Petter Bøckman, homosexual behavior has been observed in over 1,500 species."

To:According to Bagemihl: "Same-sex behavior (comprising courtship, sexual, pair-bonding, and parental activities) has been documented in over 450 species of animals worldwide. While this may seem like a lot of animals, it is in fact only a tiny fraction of the more than 1 million species that are known to exist."

--Путеец (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Еveryone agrees that I made this correction and direct quote of Bagemih? --Путеец (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * For a week, no one gave a reasoned refusal to add a quote. --Путеец (talk) 06:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)